05-20-2023, 10:49 AM
(05-09-2023, 07:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Absolutely. I would add that it is often used because people are lazy. I can't tell you the number of people in my position who do everything they can to avoid imposing disciplinary measures on their subordinates. Not because they don't think it's warranted, but because it's a lot of work and a tremendous pain in the ass. I've imposed discipline up to suspension without pay, which is a hell of a lot of work in a civil service job with a union. I understand why people avoid it, but I absolutely cannot condone it.
Yeah, this must be every workplace in the country.
My new-ish senior manager once asked me why I only filled out the required number of performance evaluations for my crew. I asked how many he wanted. He wanted one for each of them, as in like 25-30 people, on a rolling basis per month. Now, I know why I only do the minimum, but I need him to understand in realtime and not through some argument where he just thinks I'm lazy.
A month later, after about 7 or 8 evaluations met the criteria that got them escalated to his level for enhanced discipline/documentation (which doesn't take a lot, honestly. Someone can score extremely well and still be a candidate for discipline. The criteria is not forgiving), he told me to go ahead and do the minimum again, but to give warnings if I saw anything abnormal.
I'm all for tightening the screws, and I'm plenty capable of it. I just have the experience to understand that the actual weight of those policies comes form well above me, and that it's extremely unusual for anyone in those positions to follow through on the escalation. They don't want that smoke.
In short, they want me to look like a drill sergeant while management comes down and acts like everyone's advocate. I don't quite resent it, because I get why they are hesitant. It just seems like a colossal waste of time when I consider the end result.
